Illegal interlocks among life science company boards of directors

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2024-04-13 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsae005
A. Manjunath, Nathan Kahrobai, Mark A. Lemley, Ishan Kumar
{"title":"Illegal interlocks among life science company boards of directors","authors":"A. Manjunath, Nathan Kahrobai, Mark A. Lemley, Ishan Kumar","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Competition between life science companies is critical to ensure innovative therapies are efficiently developed. Anticompetitive behavior may harm scientific progress and, ultimately, patients. One well-established category of anticompetitive behavior is the ‘interlocking directorate’. It is illegal for companies’ directors to ‘interlock’ by also serving on the boards of competitors. We evaluated overlaps in the board membership of 2,241 public life science companies since 2000. We show that a robust network of interlocking companies is present among these firms. At any given time, 10–20 percent of board members are interlocked; the number of interlocks has more than doubled in the last two decades. Over half of these interlocked firms report over $5 million in historical revenue, exceeding a legal threshold that makes an interlocking directorate a violation of antitrust law. Those interlocks are only illegal if the companies compete, even in part. Using the disease categories for which companies have sponsored clinical trials, we discover that a few markets are responsible for a large fraction of interlocks. We show that in dozens of cases, companies share directors with the very firms they identify as their biggest competitive threats. We provide a data-driven roadmap for policymakers, regulators, and companies to further investigate the contribution of anticompetitive behavior to increased healthcare costs and to enforce the law against illegal interlocks between firms.","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Competition between life science companies is critical to ensure innovative therapies are efficiently developed. Anticompetitive behavior may harm scientific progress and, ultimately, patients. One well-established category of anticompetitive behavior is the ‘interlocking directorate’. It is illegal for companies’ directors to ‘interlock’ by also serving on the boards of competitors. We evaluated overlaps in the board membership of 2,241 public life science companies since 2000. We show that a robust network of interlocking companies is present among these firms. At any given time, 10–20 percent of board members are interlocked; the number of interlocks has more than doubled in the last two decades. Over half of these interlocked firms report over $5 million in historical revenue, exceeding a legal threshold that makes an interlocking directorate a violation of antitrust law. Those interlocks are only illegal if the companies compete, even in part. Using the disease categories for which companies have sponsored clinical trials, we discover that a few markets are responsible for a large fraction of interlocks. We show that in dozens of cases, companies share directors with the very firms they identify as their biggest competitive threats. We provide a data-driven roadmap for policymakers, regulators, and companies to further investigate the contribution of anticompetitive behavior to increased healthcare costs and to enforce the law against illegal interlocks between firms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生命科学公司董事会之间的非法相互牵制
摘要 生命科学公司之间的竞争对于确保高效开发创新疗法至关重要。反竞争行为可能会损害科学进步,并最终损害患者的利益。反竞争行为的一个公认类别是 "连锁董事"。公司董事同时在竞争对手的董事会任职,这种 "互锁 "行为是违法的。我们对 2000 年以来 2,241 家上市生命科学公司董事会成员的重叠情况进行了评估。我们发现,在这些公司中存在着一个强大的互锁公司网络。在任何时候,10%-20% 的董事会成员是互锁的;在过去二十年里,互锁的数量增加了一倍多。在这些互锁公司中,半数以上报告的历史收入超过 500 万美元,超过了互锁董事制度违反反垄断法的法定门槛。只有当公司之间存在竞争,哪怕是部分竞争时,这些联锁才是非法的。利用公司赞助临床试验的疾病类别,我们发现,少数几个市场造成了很大一部分互锁。我们发现,在数十个案例中,公司与被其视为最大竞争威胁的公司共同担任董事。我们为政策制定者、监管者和企业提供了一个数据驱动的路线图,以进一步调查反竞争行为对医疗成本增加的贡献,并对企业间的非法联锁行为进行执法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
The new EU-US data protection framework's implications for healthcare. The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection. Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue. Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators. Industry price guarantees for publicly funded medicines: learning from Project NextGen for pandemics and beyond.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1